 Public Works fraud raises questions
OTTAWA (CP) - Bounced cheques, phony expense claims, forged signatures, personal items charged to the public purse.
A rogue employee's abuse of the system at the Public Works Department raises questions about how effective the federal government is at catching - and disciplining - fraud artists.
The troublesome worker was allowed to retire almost two years after a part-time clerk first blew the whistle on his expense-claim shenanigans, newly released documents show.
No charges were ever laid, and the government eventually had to garnishee his retirement benefits to get its money back, though the amounts were relatively small.
The identity of the worker is protected under the Privacy Act, though it is known he reported to the Edmonton offices of Public Works from another city and his job required frequent travel.
The Canadian Press obtained heavily censored records detailing the internal investigation, under the Access to Information Act.
The case began in June 2004 when a temporary financial clerk noticed something fishy about the approval signature on an employee's travel expense claim. The employee's supervisor quickly confirmed he had not approved the claim, nor two others that came to light.
An audit was soon ordered on all claims filed by the worker in the previous 30 months - but it was not the first time problems had been noted.
The personnel files showed that over the years the employee had used a government credit card to pay for personal items; had orally terminated a contract with a supplier, but had failed to notify the accounting department, resulting in improper payouts; had his government American Express card taken away twice for irregularities; and twice bounced personal cheques meant to pay back the department for cash advances.
The audit, meanwhile, used cellphone records and other investigative tools to identify about 43 questionable travel expense claims.
For example, for some trips he claimed use of a government car and a private rental vehicle on the same days. On other "trips," phone records showed he had not been travelling at all on the days in question.
Confronted with the detailed findings in March 2005, the worker acknowledged making numerous "errors" but "did not appear remorseful or offer an apology for the discrepancies," says one report.
"I did not knowingly do any of this," he is quoted as saying. "I realize compensation back to the government is due."
Meanwhile, the department paid an Ottawa forensics firm $3,121 to analyze the signatures on five expense claims. The results: they were indeed forgeries, but it was impossible to say definitively who wrote them.
Confronted again in November 2005 with the forensics findings, the worker denied any forgery but said "there is a definite possibility that I did sign the documents for (the supervisor)."
The individual had his blanket travel privileges removed, but continued to work for the department until retirement in February 2006.
The RCMP was alerted to the case, but declined to lay charges given the relatively low dollar amounts involved.
The department eventually recouped $5,871.17 in phony expense claims and personal charges to government credit cards by deducting the amounts from the employee's retirement benefits.
In addition to the $3,121 bill for forensics, Ottawa officials spent $4,717 to travel to Alberta to investigate the case. | 
Linear Mode
